Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC  ||  Delhi High Court: Elective Surgery Does Not Bar Grant of Interim Bail on Medical Grounds  ||  Delhi HC: Consensual Romance With Minor Nearing 18 May be Considered For Bail in POCSO Case  ||  Delhi HC: Not Named In FIR Doesn’t Matter If Financial Links Show Active Role in NDPS Offence  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Rape is an Affront to Womanhood and a Brutal Violation of The Right To Life  ||  Supreme Court: Single Insolvency Petition Maintainable Against Linked Corporate Entities  ||  Supreme Court: Disputes are Not Arbitrable When the Arbitration Agreement is Alleged to be Forged  ||  Supreme Court: Temple Trust Does Not Qualify as an ‘Industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act    

Delhi State Consumer Commission Orders Unitech to Pay Rs 33 Lakhs - (20 Aug 2019)

CONSUMER

Delhi State Consumer Commission has noted that homebuyers cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for the possession of flats and directed real estate firm Unitech to refund over Rs. 33 lakh to a resident. It directed Unitech to refund Rs. 33.59 lakh paid by Delhi resident Surhid Bhandari within 45 days along with simple interest at 10 per cent per annum for the seven-year delay in handing over the possession of the apartment.

Tags : DELHI STATE CONSUMER COMMISSION   UNITECH  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved